John Howard fails the citizenship test
The federal government has been talking up the value and importance of citizenship for some time, going so far as planning to introduce a new citizenship test to make sure migrants know Australian values and laws before they are allowed to become ‘real Aussies’. But apparently the government none the less thinks encouraging people to become citizens is actually a “dirty trick” if they might vote against the Coalition. Maybe this might be one of the questions in the citizenship test?
I suppose these things can be dismissed as pre-election political posturing. But what really surprised me was a comment the Prime Minister made in response to the efforts by some unions to encourage migrant workers who are eligible for citizenship to take it up so they can vote at the forthcoming election.
Mr Howard said “I don’t think temporary residents of this country thinking about becoming citizens would appreciate a union telling them what they should do.”
Surely of all people, the Prime Minister would understand how our citizenship laws work, given all his pontificating about the unifying nature of citizenship? Temporary residents are not eligible to become a citizen, no matter how long they have been here.
You have to be a permanent resident before you can be eligible – something I thought the Prime Minister would know given it was one of the key reasons why his government put refugees on temporary residency visas, rather than permanent visas where they could become citizens and get their families to join them. Sounds like John Howard needs to do a citizenship test of his own.
13 Comments, Comment or Ping
paul walter
Well, what do we divine from Andrew’s thread?
The essence of “good citizenship”, if you follow the Howard example is wholly, solely and ultimately to either use other people or, if no other use can be found, as scapegoats.
A neolib Australian does not “befriend” other people.
It’s all about “self”!
Every one is expedient, every one has their price and everyone is expendable. We see evidence of their “values” in the Coalition’s day-to-day behaviours involving other people.
“Mateship” deteriorates into only the expedient utilisation of others for your own benefit.
Go back through the week. Think of Telstra and its abuse of its workers as a role model for the REAL template of future master/slave, err sorry, boss/worker relations.
More attacks on down-on-their-luck Welfare beneficaries ( they are useful as scapegoats ) the exploitation of indigenes as subjects for ridicule, Rudd- bashing, Muslim- bashing, sucking up to Indonesia, Union- bashing (god forbid ordinary people would want to avoid becoming slave-labor) and the egregious milking of other people’s money for secret dirt file squads and fundraising shows for anti social policy purposes at Sillibilly house.
Remember, the PM loudly trumpeted that the residence was “his”, as if HE had paid for it out of his own poverty-raddled pocket, but he has never paid a penny toward gourmet food, rent, transport or anything else which is after all “ours”, rather than the rent-seeking dog-in the-manger entrenched there just now.
Back to Sen.Bartlett’s earlier question concerning “motives”.
Why is it that everything Howardists do seems eventually to reveal some base, ulterior motive.
Remember kids overboard? Once that election had passed THEN all the lies flooded out.
What is that Howard means, when he talks of “Australian values”?
Why is it that he has never been able to give a satisfactory answer on what he means by “values
Jun 24th, 2007
David Couper
Once again, a “Fraudian” slip from the slippery PM. Loved the Ellerman hypothetical, though if Brian Houston even gets a foot in the Federal political door anytime soon, I’ll go to Sweden and apply for refugee status immediately!
Perhaps Michael should also have added:
9. With a number of associates set in motion the expansion of an energy industry (uranium/nuclear) to suit his own post-political purposes/retirement fund, knowing full well that the said industry would be all-too-short-lived, environmentally disastrous, and ironically wasteful to far-future generations who needed the uranium to allow them to mine extra-terrestrial resources and set up colonies on other Solar System bodies.
Johnny (Andrew, you can answer if you wish), if the concept of a “fair go” is the epitome of Australian life & values, would it then be reasonable to deny migrants (as well as to find some method of deporting Australians) who subscribe to apocalyptic/Armageddon-seeking philosophies, as they are by default intending to see that others who don’t share this vision suffer alongside them at a time they deem such an event will occur (despite the scientific falsifiability of such a claimed event)? We may not have that many of those persons in our nation, but they clearly exist here, yet Johnny, a number of them are actually acquaintances of yours, “acting” in the Judeo-Christian guise you so often promote as the foundation of our nation’s upbringing, and with perhaps a tentacle sticking into the policy direction of the nation (let alone the link to G.W.Bush and his Apocalyptic visionaries).
If anything in this Citizenship Test is mentioned about religion, it better include “Freedom from” as well as the standard “Freedom of”. The American “Founding Fathers” never mentioned God when they designed their Constitution, but one can visualise a similar Cit. test being done there now…
Jun 24th, 2007
Aurelius
If he fails, can we deport him somewhere? Somalia? Darfur? Auckland?
Jun 24th, 2007
al loomis
hardly surprising that johnny should fail, as he, and all of us, are subjects of ‘er majesty, queen liz the 1st of oz. ozzies like to imagine they are citizens, close enough, but subjects are different: a vastly inferior breed characterized by childlike indifference to politics in keeping with their childlike political power.
Jun 24th, 2007
Brian Bahnisch
Howard, a lawyer by training for Chrissake, doesn’t understand the basic requirements for being a citizen. Clearly he is unfit to be PM, no?
Jun 24th, 2007
Graham Bell
Aurelius [on 3]:
Why do you hate New Zealand? :D L-O-L
Brian Bahnisch [5]:
Agree. Let’s have another look at that job description and selection criteria …..hmmmm.
Andrew Bartlett:
Tne biter bit. :D Foist on his own petard. :D Etc., etc.
It’s not as though this hasn’t happened before: Half-a-century ago, Dutch were encouraged to migrate to Australia and become Aussie citizens. Good stolid Dutch workers who, of course, wouldn’t have a bar of the unions and all that socialist stuff. When it became obvious that many Dutch migrants not only became active unionist but also became vigorously involved in all sorts of community affairs, including politics, the powers-that-be did everything short of blockading the Netherlands to stop more of these very undocile Dutch coming over here and rocking the boat. And so it was with almost every wave of immigrants – the Greeks, the Vietnamese and so on. You just can’t trust these foreigners; give them the vote and they’ll vote however they feel instead of voting properly …..
Oh dear, oh dear ….. poor little diddums.
Jun 24th, 2007
philip travers
How unkind everyone is being to our Our Beloved Dictator and Benefactor…keep it simple stupid,it was his memory,…permanent residents rejoice he wasnt trying to threaten you…honestly!?
Jun 24th, 2007
Dave Bath
The best statement of values I’ve appropriate for a political structure (and for prospective citizens to say they agree with) is the draft EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms. Howard would find this noble document even more objectionable than the UK government does.
Read the charter, see its scope, weep, and wonder why we can’t use it (after appropriate search/replace in a word processor) in our own constitution or laws, which, thus codified, makes them valid subjects for a citizenship test.
This samples from the preamble:
Jun 24th, 2007
CORAL
Yes, I think they should become citizens as quickly as possible and help us vote John Howard out.
Dave:
We could certainly use some solidarity and justice in this country.
Jun 25th, 2007
Karooson
The verdict of not guilty,is an injustice to the word justice.A police Officer was proven,by the coroner,and a (jury?)finds him not guilty of the crime to have been the cause of the death in custody of a drunk Aboriginal man,The silence from the Prime Minister on the verdict,has ben turned into a nazi style way of solving the problem,that was created by white man,who fed them on booze or grog to keep them happy and content,pushed them further into the outback or wilderness,and now wants to do this,reason an election is on the horison,and he needs votes to try and keep him and his Liberal Party in Government
Jun 25th, 2007
Nancy Jakeman
I was as puzzled as anybody to hear John Howard’s remarks re temporary citizens, having with others assisted an Iranian refugee to travel past temporary to permanent visa status, a matter about which I knew nothing until then… but I’m not the PM.
I will welcome in a new government later this year with forward thinking policies and a sweeter touch… and see Senator Andrew Bartlett returned as our very important Queensland advocate. GO ANDREW!
Jun 26th, 2007